‘Kids are not property of their parents, nor a toy’:Indore family court rules in favour of mother in custody case; daughter’s clear preference proves decisive

Children are neither the property of their parents nor a toy. They also have their own rights, their own desires, which cannot be ignored. This remark was made by the Indore Family Court. A couple had filed a petition regarding the custody of their 15-year-old daughter. After hearing arguments from both sides, the court ruled in favour of the wife after eight years. The child will remain with her mother. The court stressed that such cases require a “human touch.” What is notable is that the husband is a scientist at the prestigious Raja Ramanna Centre for Advanced Technology (RRCAT) in Indore, while the wife is a professor at the Shri Govindram Seksaria Institute of Technology and Science. What exactly happened, and why did the court rule in favour of the wife? Here is the full report… Rift in the relationship since 2017 Manthan and Aarti had been married for 14 years when bitterness began to develop in their relationship. The disagreements grew to the point that the image of a “perfect family” collapsed. In 2017, Manthan approached the Family Court seeking custody of their younger daughter. This marked the beginning of a long and emotional legal battle that continued for eight years. Husband’s argument: Wife not providing the right environment for the child Scientist Manthan presented himself as a concerned father in his petition. He argued that his wife Aarti, being deeply occupied with her teaching career and busy schedule, was unable to provide a safe and healthy environment for their daughter. Husband’s main allegations Negligence and loneliness: Manthan alleged that Aarti often locked the daughter alone at home before leaving for college. According to him, this made the child dependent on mobile phones and disrupted her studies and daily routine. Promise of a better future: He appealed for custody, citing his profession, disciplined lifestyle, and stable family background. He claimed he was the better option for the child’s education and overall development. Emotional bond: Manthan told the court that he used to play with his daughter to reduce her stress and take her out often. He said she was happier with him. He had bought her skating shoes, but Aarti did not take her for practice, which he said was hampering her talent. Domestic violence and harassment: Manthan accused Aarti of frequent quarrels and threats of suicide. He mentioned two specific incidents:– In August 2013, when he took the child to drink water, she allegedly hit him with a rolling pin.– In October 2016, she allegedly struck him with a slipper, and he had filed a police complaint. Wife’s response: ‘Husband is short-tempered, daughter is afraid of him’ Professor Aarti rejected all allegations and presented her own account before the court. She described her husband as short-tempered and unstable, and said the daughter did not feel safe with him. Wife’s main arguments Husband’s Temper: Aarti said Manthan gets angry over small issues and often quarrels or uses abusive language in front of the children. This behaviour, she said, frightens the daughter, who does not wish to stay with him. Pressure in the Name of Discipline: She argued that he puts excessive pressure on the child under the guise of discipline, which increases her fear. Unstable Lifestyle: According to Aarti, her husband leaves home at 7 AM and returns at 8 PM. She questioned how he could provide time or emotional support to the child. She also said he had left his permanent residence and currently had no fixed address. Daughter’s Upbringing and Success: Aarti stated that she is a postgraduate and personally teaches her daughter. She claimed the child is progressing well under her care. Court considered the daughter’s wish Amid conflicting allegations, the court decided to understand the daughter’s preference. In a calm and private chamber setting, the child was asked whom she wanted to stay with. She answered clearly and without hesitation:“I want to stay with my mum.” She credited her mother for her squash achievements and explained how her mother helped her with everything, from diet to studies. Her clear preference became the turning point in the case. Court’s Decision: ‘Human touch’ above the law The Family Court relied not only on legal documents but also on human factors. It referred to landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal (1973) and Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009). These rulings establish that in custody matters, the child’s welfare is the sole deciding factor.The Court observed:“A child is not a permanent asset. They are not an object that parents can divide at will. The child’s welfare, education, health, emotional stability, and moral development are the true criteria.” The Court stated that its duty is not just to decide between parents, but to safeguard the child’s welfare. It emphasised that such cases need a “human touch.” Final order and the message According to Advocate Prateek Maheshwari, after hearing all sides and especially considering the child’s wish, the Court ordered: – The younger daughter will remain in the custody of her mother, Aarti.– The father, Manthan, may meet her on the third Saturday of every month, but only in the mother’s presence.– He may also speak to the child via phone or video call. The Court wrote an important remark in its order:“Children are neither the property of their parents nor toys to be used as they wish.”